to clarify: it's not the dam itself that's at risk of failure, but the emergency spillway. while this scenario would be catastrophic, it's far less catastrophic than the entire dam failing
Think about that statement, what does is mean to you that the "emergency spillway failed" ? The ES is the portion of the dam that is slightly lower than the overall height of the dam so that in the event the main spillway was unable to release water fast enough, the water would start spilling here rather than across the dam. If it "fails" then a portion of the dam ceases to exist. That releases water through that hole uncontrollably. At which point losing containment is generally a matter of when not if.
If it fails, it will be a double disaster, many people will lose property, and California will lose some or all of the water in its largest reservoir. The challenge is going to be keeping ahead of it through to the next storm.
The emergency spillway is around 30 feet high, the dam itself is 770 feet high. The amount of water released from a failure of the emergency spillway will be enormous, but still much smaller than the amount of water released by a complete dam failure.
Excellent link, thanks. I found the following comment sobering:
"Countryman: It’s not going to be the (main) embankment failure, but it’s a failure. If it does happen, there’s nothing saying that the ground is going to stay where it is. That force of water will start tearing that hill apart, and it could eat back into the reservoir and drain the reservoir."
> At which point losing containment is generally a matter of when not if.
No, it's not. The local geology is fairly solid rock. The overflowing water will wear down the overlying soil and loose Earth, but should be sustained by the rock formation. It is a risk, certainly, but such a site is chosen because of the suitable foundation.
The issue right now is to see how the spillway fares over the night. If it handles the increased flow, then it should be able to continue to relieve the situation.
To be fair, I think it is a little ethically troubling to refer to the emergency spillway as anything other than that (e.g. auxiliary spillway), but it is designed to function in an emergency, not just fail catastrophically.
I'd love to get a source on this info. I've been looking for info on the geology of the exact area and the dam construction to assess this exact point.
Where did you find the info on the area being solid rock?
That would go a long way to giving an idea as to how bad any increased failure might be.
the way JS does closures, and the mandatory async nature of everything, leads to a world where you're working with functions a lot more than you would be in languages in the same family (garbage collected, lenient, a la python and ruby). from there, functional programming concepts like partial application and currying start to pop up. if you dive into frameworks like react.js, you start to encounter pure functions and immutability. it's not what I would call a "functional programming language", but I find the concepts show up more than usual, and I think that's because functions are one of the more advanced primitives in the language
Kafka, Samza, Databus, etc. LinkedIn is pretty capable when it comes to engineering. From what I've seen, most people's beef with LI tends to be product-related
>The easiest strategy in a case like this is usually to back in time: If the problem was caused by the unorthodox checkout-add-commit, then reset master to the point before that happened and try doing it a different way. That strategy wasn't available because X had already published the master with his back-end files, and a hundred other programmers had copies of them.
So resetting the commit isn't an option, but what about reverting it? It seems like the obvious alternative to me, I'm not sure why he didn't mention it.
Does it matter? If your email client doesn't understand enough of the markdown variant being used, then you should still be able to read the unrendered text. That's one of the great things about markdown.
